How is the many worlds interpretation of QM related to the multiverse theory?

bostonnew
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
To my understanding you can believe in the multiverse theory without subscribing to many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. But can you subscribe to the many-worlds interpretation while also believing there is only this one universe (and that it just has hidden dimensions).

Can someone please help me understand how these are related?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Multiverses are just parallel universes (or even distant parts of a single universe) separated informatically (no information may leak from one to another). So you may think about them regardless your metaphysical interpretation of QM, actually you may think about them without bothering about QM at all.
can you subscribe to the many-worlds interpretation while also believing there is only this one universe
In a strict meaning it is a self-contradiction: as the World splits into two (many) Worlds, we have many of them, not one.

But you may believe that there exist just one tree of Everett's worlds.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
Back
Top